Gerrymandering. Explain this to me like I am 10 years old.

[smirkymonkey]

I understand what it is, in that it is the political manipulation of electoral district boundaries with the intent of creating undue advantage for a party, group, or socio-economic class within the constituency.

What I don't understand is why it is allowed in this country. it seems to me that a state's legislature (whatever party they may be, and usually these unfair boundaries end up favoring the right wing) should not have such control over the way districts are drawn.

There should be a bi-partisan committee that draws up districts based upon natural borders and/or demographic groups and allows that to stand.

Is it just a matter of one party being in power in a state that allows this to happen and that is it? And why are there no checks/balances on this kind of political behavior? It just seems so unfair and so wrong.

I fear this will be the end of us, and i really want to know why this is even a thing in the first place.

Sorry for my ignorance, but this is something that has been stuck in my craw for a long time and i want a GOOD answer, not the usual political run-around bullshit. Thanks in advance.

[intrepidity]

1. It was a ballot initiative here in my state (CA)

asking how district boundaries ought to be drawn, whether by non-partisan, bi-partisan, or partisan.

I seem to recall reading that many/most blue states opted for non-partisan (or bi-) but many/most/all red states opted for the partisan route.

[smirkymonkey]

7. Yes! That's what I mean.

It always seems to favor republicans and I do not feel like such a partisan practice should be allowed.

Even in states where we are heavily favored, because we will always win them anyway. But they don't win their states fair and square and that is why they do it.

[LakeArenal]

2. In WI with control of the governor and the legislature could do whatever they want.

Even when a judge said they had to redo the districting they didn’t.

Once you control the district, then they can restrict voting rights anyway they want to.

That’s why gerrymandering, tho done at a state level, affects the the national elections.

[smirkymonkey]

9. Yes, and it drives me insane.

Why is it allowed? Why can't their be a more fair practice of drawing up voting districts?

[yardwork]

3. I share your frustration. Apparently it's up to the states.

North Carolina is so horribly gerrymandered, we appear in studies of states that are no long considered "democracies." A majority of NC voters choose Democratic congressional representatives, but due to the way our districts are drawn, most of our Representatives are Republican.

Let that sink in. When taken as a whole, the majority of the total voters casting ballots in the state vote for Democratic representatives, but our congressional caucus is overwhelmingly Republican. All those Democratic voters are squeezed into a few districts - with ridiculous boundaries - while the Republican voters are spread across numerous districts.

Same is true for our state legislature. We would have a Democratic majority if our state legislature reflected the will of the voters. Instead we have a hard-right Republican controlled state house. Thank the goddess for our Democratic governor.

[smirkymonkey]

11. And it infuriates me!

It's so wrong and so misrepresents the "will of the people". While we have the power, why can't something be done about this? I know it's complcated, but it has to stop.

We are going to lose 2022 because of this.

[LakeArenal]

13. Don't say that. They want you to say that.

I worked on Gov Evers campaign. He won. Fight back.

[thatdemguy]

4. Its allowed because

The states are allowed to set up their own rules on how districts are done. Maryland is one of the most obvious when you look at the maps for it. The new map makes much more sense on the layout, go to the link and click on the old map. The state is about 60/40 D/R but there are 8 districts and only was was repub. https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/redistricting-2022-maps/maryland/

Its used two ways, to dilute votes and/or concentrate them. Take 3 areas if they where all 50/50 then you can do two ( well 3 ) things. One would be to concentrate all of one vote in one area and have a 2/1, that makes 3 solid votes, 2 for one party, and one for the other. The other option would be make all 3 areas a fighting chance.

The other things that can be done is to take say a solid area of 75k votes, and put them together with an area that has 90k solid votes for the other party. Sure it seems close on the books, but getting a swing 15k votes is next to impossible. This is done to dilute those votes, but combined with the first part of concentrating the vote, you get maryland.

This is also done on racial lines, spread out as many POC votes over as many districts as possible so they never really get a vote, as they are so diluted. You could also concentrate the POC votes, but to level, say 45%, of the vote that they can be ignored.

[LonePirate]

12. It would have been outlawed this past year but Manchin and Sinema voted No.

Follow the money I saw to understand why they voted No.

[smirkymonkey]

14. But it should not be allowed in the first place.

I think it should be purely geographical, by county. There should be a federal law making it illegal because it always favors white, right-wing, christian republicans.

[jimfields33]

16. I think it should be done by zip code

Seems easy enough. Everyone in this zip code votes at this particular school for these two competing congresspersons.

[Elessar Zappa]

5. Gerrymandering should absolutely be outlawed.

We engage in it also but we kinda have to or Republicans would have an even more unfair advantage.

[smirkymonkey]

15. But if they didn't and we didn't, wouldnt we ultimately have the advantage?

We only do it to counteract their own cheating.

[Elessar Zappa]

24. Yes, Democrats would definitely have the advantage.

In my opinion, there should be a constitutional amendment that outlaws it.

[Hoyt]

6. From what I have read recently, it appears redistricting has favored Democrats this year.

[brooklynite]

8. Simple answer: nobody said they couldn't

Nothing in the Federal Constitution prohibits it. And historically, the legislature was responsible for deciding such things.

[smirkymonkey]

17. Right. There are a lot of things that the Constitution does not specifically mention.

But I think perhaps we should reconsider. We should do the thing that makes it the most fair for both parties, by forbidding it nationwide.

Most republican legislatures will do ANYTHING to make sure that their party stays in power.

I may be naive, but I dont believe that democrats are quite that unprincipled.

[Mr.Bill]

10. As George Carlin would say,

It's a small club and you're not in it.

[smirkymonkey]

18. Exactly.

I so wish he was here today. Because he is the person we need for these times. He cuts right through all the BS and gets straight to the point.

For his own sake, I am glad he is gone so he did not have to see what has happened to this country. But for ours, we need someone like him again and soon. Well done, Mr. Carlin!

[Mr.Bill]

20. I, too, miss him and I also miss

Hunter S. Thompson.

[sdfernando]

19. Here are two articles on the practice

its actually quite an old practice and pre-dates the use of the word gerrymander...ever pre-dates the founding of the U.S.

https://www.history.com/news/gerrymandering-origins-voting

https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/research-reports/gerrymandering-explained

[smirkymonkey]

25. Wow. Didn't realize that. Very interesting.

Thank you for the info!

Still, I think we should do something about it, like make it illegal, nationwide.

[moondust]

21. Maybe it wasn't so bad

back before computers enabled much more precision. As in "this part of town is liberal so let's lump it in with those other liberal parts so they only get one rep."

Voting databases and computerized maps down to the street address level likely make it much more pernicious. Maybe there are studies someplace on its effectiveness before the 1980s-90s when home computers became widely available vs. its effects since then. ???

[smirkymonkey]

26. I'm not sure. I'm not an expert on this subject, obviously. But there has to be a way to

carve things up so that they are fair and not as obviously partisan.

[moondust]

32. I'm no expert.

Just lived and worked through the great migration to computerization of everything.

The best news I've heard on the subject is this:

~
In 2008 and 2010, (California) voters threw out the old system that allowed politicians to draw boundaries for state legislative and congressional districts that favored incumbents and replaced it with one that gives the power to an independent commission without a partisan agenda.
~
Editorial: Pat yourself on the back, California. Gerrymandering has been squashed

[FakeNoose]

22. Gerrymandering is what the incumbents do to put their thumbs on the scale

This is true for Dems as well as Repukes. We're angry over the Repukes doing it to us in the last several elections. But make no mistake, in some areas and some states the Dems have done it too.

When the people who are already in office want to fiddle with their districts to make it easier for them (or others in their party) to get re-elected, that's what gerrymandering is. It's anti-democratic in that it sets up certain districts to favor a certain party to win those districts.

[smirkymonkey]

27. Thank you! This is the answer I was looking for.

However, how can we stop it and make this less possible/more fair?

Can we just set natural boundaries (county, region, etc.) for voting districts without carving them up to make them favor one party over the other? Why would that be so hard?

[FakeNoose]

34. Our census revises the population every 10 years - so we do this every 10 years

It has been explained in other posts here that there are no hard-and-fast rules set up by our Constitution on how to draw up the districts. Rural counties have low pop. density so it often takes several counties to make up one Congressional District. Meanwhile metropolitan (big city) districts are split into multiple Congressional Districts that are required to have nearly equal population - since those citizens all live much closer together.

Consider the Senate for a moment. Every state has two Senators no matter how large or small the state is. Most of us understand why the Senate is set up to favor the rural low-population states that are mostly conservative. Those Senators from rural low-pop states have more voting power per state than the Senators who were voted in by high pop (usually liberal) states. If you understand that distinction in the Senate, then it would be the same thing if we made each county have its own Representative regardless of how many citizens lived in the county. The Representatives from (conservative) rural counties would have more voting power than the Representatives from high population (liberal) counties. It would defeat the purpose of having a House of Representatives if we did that. So that's why we don't have it.

It's complicated and hard work to draw up fair Congressional District maps, but it can be done. My contention is that incumbents (current office-holders) should not be allowed to participate.

[smirkymonkey]

35. Well explained. Thank you!

I appreciate it. I know that it is not an easy task, but it should be as fair as possible. You have done a good job of explaining how complicated that can be.

[intrepidity]

23. I recently gained more understanding of the complexities of redistricting

The districts around here were being redrawn, so there were frequent articles in the local paper describing the process and the issues involved. There's no way I can go into all of the details here, but because it involved areas that I am very familiar with, it allowed me to see the process with much more appreciation.

For example, the districts encompassed urban cities, rural communities, farmland/vinyards, and the coast--plus cities and towns that were split up by district lines. They needed to redraw the lines to reflect the new census data.

Actully, here is a good, detailed description of the whole thing:

https://www.pressdemocrat.com/article/news/supervisors-request-more-redistricting-maps/

There are just so many factors involved, and I'm fairly confident that many R's don't think about much beyond the D-R implications--the example above is good because--being deep blue Sonoma--those concerns seemingly are moot.

It's a good read imho to understand how the process *should* work. And how, no matter what, somebody will be upset with the decision.

[smirkymonkey]

29. Thank you very much! This is really helpful!

This is what I love about DU! I always learn so much.

Thanks again!

[WarGamer]

28. because for the most part... States get to decide how they hold elections.

[smirkymonkey]

30. That's the problem, isn't it.

[WarGamer]

31. Is it?

If a President Trump or Gaetz or Noem worked with a GOP Congress to pass restrictive national voting laws...

You'd like that?

I'm happy that States like California have the legal basis to hold elections as we wish.

[smirkymonkey]

33. No, I don't mean so much that states don't have freedom to have their own rights to

hold elections as they wish, but you know how insane it can get. I mean, can you imagine if someone like MTG was able to draw up voting districts with no restrictions?

There should be a national law to hold some kind of boundary to keep it fair. So that there are some kind of parameters in which states need to work with. I'm not a legal expert and I don't know how it would be done, specifically, but there should be some kind of law in place to keep things from getting ridiculous. Just some kind of legal balance, that's all.